GNU bug report logs - #70326
30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 70326 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:24:53 +0200

In 19.3.2 Backup Files, we read:

   "Emacs makes a backup for a file only the first time the file is saved
    from a buffer."

However, when I launch Emacs with:

    $ emacs -Q

and then do:

    C-x C-w backup.txt RET

then the file is saved from the buffer as expected, and Emacs tells me:

    "Wrote .../backup.txt"

However, even though this is the first time the file is saved from a
buffer, no backup for a file is created, and buffer-backed-up is nil.

If possible, could you please consider rephrasing the documentation so
that it accurately describes the cases where a backup file is created,
or alternatively adapt the behaviour so that it matches the current
documentation?

Thank you and all the best,
Markus

In GNU Emacs 30.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-apple-darwin18.2.0, X toolkit,
 cairo version 1.17.6, Xaw scroll bars) of 2023-09-11 built on
 mac
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12011000
System Description:  Mac OS X 10.14.2

Message #8 received at 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50;
 Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:28:47 +0300

tags 70326 notabug
thanks

> From: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:24:53 +0200
> 
> In 19.3.2 Backup Files, we read:
> 
>    "Emacs makes a backup for a file only the first time the file is saved
>     from a buffer."
> 
> However, when I launch Emacs with:
> 
>     $ emacs -Q
> 
> and then do:
> 
>     C-x C-w backup.txt RET

"C-x C-w" is not "saving the file from a buffer".  "C-h c" says that
"C-x C-w runs the command write-file".  So I don't see anything wrong
with what the manual says.

Message #13 received at 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50;
 Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:53:53 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> "C-x C-w" is not "saving the file from a buffer".  "C-h c" says that
> "C-x C-w runs the command write-file".  So I don't see anything wrong
> with what the manual says.

To reproduce the issue, you can also type a letter and then use C-x C-s
(i.e., save-buffer), and observe the same effect: A backup file is not
created, even though a file is saved for the first time from a buffer.

All the best,
Markus

Message #16 received at 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50;
 Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 22:28:14 +0300

> From: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
> Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:53:53 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > "C-x C-w" is not "saving the file from a buffer".  "C-h c" says that
> > "C-x C-w runs the command write-file".  So I don't see anything wrong
> > with what the manual says.
> 
> To reproduce the issue, you can also type a letter and then use C-x C-s
> (i.e., save-buffer), and observe the same effect: A backup file is not
> created, even though a file is saved for the first time from a buffer.

That is still not saving the file from its buffer.

Message #19 received at 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50;
 Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:46:59 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> That is still not saving the file from its buffer.

The documentation does not require "saving the file from its buffer",
but mentions "saving the file from a buffer", and save-buffer is
described as "Save current buffer in visited file". If save-buffer does
not qualify as saving a file from a buffer, then indeed please consider
the issue addressed. Thank you a lot!

Message #22 received at 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match
 observed behaviour
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:00:46 +0200

Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at> writes:

> The documentation does not require "saving the file from its buffer",
> but mentions "saving the file from a buffer", and save-buffer is
> described as "Save current buffer in visited file".

This argument makes sense to me.  "its" would be better if it is
technically correct enough.

Michael.

Message #25 received at 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50;
 Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:59:23 +0300

> From: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
> Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:46:59 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > That is still not saving the file from its buffer.
> 
> The documentation does not require "saving the file from its buffer",
> but mentions "saving the file from a buffer", and save-buffer is
> described as "Save current buffer in visited file".

When have you last looked at the documentation in that part of the
manual?

Message #28 received at 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50;
 Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:11:48 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> When have you last looked at the documentation in that part of the
> manual?

I last looked at it a few seconds ago to verify that it still reads as I
originally posted it, and indeed it still reads:

    Emacs makes a backup for a file only the first time the file is
    saved from a buffer.

To repeat the original issue, this is not the behaviour I observe: There
are cases where the file is saved from a buffer, and Emacs does not make
a backup. I previously posted an example in this thread, and I hope you
find it useful. Thank you a lot!

Message #31 received at 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50;
 Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:38:49 +0300

> From: Markus Triska <triska <at> metalevel.at>
> Cc: 70326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:11:48 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > When have you last looked at the documentation in that part of the
> > manual?
> 
> I last looked at it a few seconds ago to verify that it still reads as I
> originally posted it, and indeed it still reads:
> 
>     Emacs makes a backup for a file only the first time the file is
>     saved from a buffer.

Here, it says this instead:

  A “backup file” is a copy of the old contents of a file you are editing.
  Emacs makes a backup file the first time you save a buffer into its
  visited file.

> To repeat the original issue, this is not the behaviour I observe: There
> are cases where the file is saved from a buffer, and Emacs does not make
> a backup. I previously posted an example in this thread, and I hope you
> find it useful. Thank you a lot!

In the two cases you posted, the buffer was not saved into the file
visited by the buffer, so this is not "backup" in Emacs terms.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.